Fascism Is A Step Towards Liberty

As many of you know, the target audience of Radical Capitalist (RadCap) ranges from right leaning libertarians/AnCaps to the Alt-right. RadCap wishes to demonstrate the complementary nature of libertarianism and the Alt-Right, and seeks to forge a union between the two. (For more on this see “For A Libertarian Alt-Right“.) This union would remedy the short comings that tend to prevail in each respective movement, namely the socio-cultural ignorance of many libertarians and the political/economic ignorance of many alt-righters. Thus, RadCap has taken a strategic and holistic approach to furthering the ends of revitalizing the West and ultimately destroying the State. Contrary to the claims of lolberts and left-“libertarians”, such an approach does not require a breach in libertarian principle, an endorsement of aggression, a repudiation of private property, nor an expansion of State power.

However, many lolberts have objected to this claim by countering “but much of the Alt-Right is fascist!!!.” Of course, the term “Fascist” and “Fascism” have been abused and stigmatized to the point to where they have become synonymous with pure evil. As such, they have lost much of their discernible meaning. This obfuscation and perversion of the concept of Fascism as well as other concepts and institutions such as nationalism, the nuclear family, monogamy, individualism, and capitalism is an integral facet of the Cultural Marxist agenda. The Manipulation of language is essential to surreptitiously undermine, gaslight, divide, and disorient one’s opponent.

Admittedly, in an effort to incite discussion of this matter, I made a post asserting that, from our current Statist position in the United States, Fascism would be a step closer to Anarcho-Capitalism (AnCap), whereas Democracy would be a step towards Communism.

The intention of this post was to reveal the effects of Cultural Marxism that even those among the most enlightened of us have yet to detect. That, though we may all oppose Democracy, many libertarians see it as less threatening or dangerous to liberty than Fascism (and sometimes Monarchism!). In fact, many libertarians view egalitarian policies and systems like Democracy as being steps along the path to a libertarian social order. Nothing could be further from the truth. (For more on this see “Hoppe Destroys Left-Libertarianism“).

It is my contention that the United States could be categorized somewhere between Fascism and Democracy (in fact, it contains some of the worst elements of both), hence determining which of these is closer to our ultimate libertarian end is critical to the development of our strategy. After all, before one may reach his destination, he must first know which direction to travel. Of course, it may not be necessary to travel through the eye of Fascism in order to reach a libertarian social order, but we can at least recognize that it is a point along the correct trajectory (even if it’s a point that we are able to skip over.)

What can be said for certain, however, is that we will not be able to transition from our current State of affairs (pun intended), to a completely AnCap society in a single step. Thus, it behooves us to identify what the intermediate steps and stages may be so as to develop a viable strategy to reaching our libertarian destination.

However, if you are more interested in “purity spiraling” (not to be confused with staying principled) then you may take the route of the lolberts as exemplified from one of their most iconic representatives, Anarchyball, below:

The following meme is a humorous, yet accurate depiction of the ignorance and purity spiraling of lolberts (number 4 represents Fascism):

Before delving further into this topic, it would behoove us to do something novel like actually defining Fascism. You may notice that those who often appeal to Fascism as the epitome of evil never bother defining what exactly it is so as to enable rational and productive evaluation. That said, the meaning of Fascism is not definitively clear, however one may make several general observations which help clarify and approximate its nature. The following description of Fascism found at Smash Cultural Marxism accomplishes this task in the following:

Fascism is based on free enterprise – but with constraints (the primary constraint being, “Is the particular economic activity in question good for our nation/people?”). Also, a businessman can become wealthy in a Fascist country, and the government has no objection to this (this is in stark contrast to Communism). Fascism also encourages private ownership of property (again, in stark contrast to Communism where private property is not allowed).

In a nutshell, Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, “Go ahead and start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don’t produce any products or services which damage our nation and our nation’s people… and make sure you treat your workers fair and pay them a living wage. If you don’t follow these rules, we’ll shut you down.”

With regard to banking, usury is not allowed under Fascism. The government tightly controls all aspects of monetary policy, including terms of lending. The government issues/prints money and lends it interest free, as needed, to grow the economy and ultimately serve the citizens.

From the above it seems clear that Fascist governments are favorable to market systems and private property. This is consistent with libertarian principles. Fascist governments also oppose the Central Banking System as evidenced by the fact that they issue currency directly as opposed to borrowing it into existence from the Central Bank. For more on this see the “Money and Banking” Chapter of A Spontaneous Order. This may not be as ideal as the “Gold Standard” or eliminating all legal tender laws and allowing money to be developed and produced privately, however it is a large step in the right direction.

Of course, the State having power to prohibit industry that is arbitrarily determined to “not be in the interest of the nation” or to regulate interest rates via usury laws is not libertarian, but I’m not claiming Fascism is perfect. In fact, such laws and prohibitions exist today, so when comparing the current State to Fascism, this particular area should be considered a wash. Remember, the purpose of this essay is to argue that Fascism is a step in the libertarian direction. It is not intended to say that Fascism is itself libertarian nor is it claimed to be a close approximation.

The above is the economic aspect of Fascism. There is also a cultural/social aspect to Fascism as well. Under Fascism, government plays a key role in monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music, education, etc in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor, and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts society.

……Also, under Fascism, if a person doesn’t like things, he/she can leave the country. Contrast this with Communism where if you don’t like things, you better keep your mouth shut. And, of course, there is no option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a re-education camp where you’ll be brainwashed to accept the Communist system. And if you still resist, you’ll probably be killed. Again, there is no leaving. Submit or suffer the consequences.

Further, Fascism holds women in very high regard. Women are the carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and well read. Women are encouraged to pursue their interests and have a career but only if a career won’t interfere with their family’s needs; family comes first, always. Women are encouraged to be strong yet feminine. Consistent with these ideas, Fascist art often portrays women as heroic and even goddess-like.

In short, Fascism is a form of government & social system which authentically serves the interests of the people and nation as a whole. The word “Fascism” comes from the Italian word “fascio” meaning “the group” or more specifically, “in consideration of the group.” Fascism is rooted in the notion that people must stay true to two mental concepts throughout their lives: 1) the individual’s needs (themselves) and, 2) the group’s needs (their nation)… always evaluating how their individual actions affect the group.

Continuing this line of thought, under Fascism all people of one’s ethnicity are considered the greater family of that person. Hence, a Fascist nation is thought of as one giant family of several million people. Therefore, just as one mustn’t do anything to hurt their brother or sister in their immediate family, under Fascism one mustn’t do anything which would hurt the nation/group (i.e., the greater family). This is the essence of Fascism – a strong consideration of the group balanced with individualism.

From the above, many libertarians will quickly recognize deviations from the libertarian standard insofar as the State regulates and prohibits different forms of expression (beyond the will of private property owners with respect to their own property). This observation is essentially correct, however various forms of artistic expression are regulated (and sometimes prohibited) under the current regime as well, so this too is a wash (remember we’re comparing the current State to Fascism, not a libertarian social order to Fascism). However, if the regulation and prohibition of certain forms of expression is a given, then it’s certainly better that the more degenerate, cultural marxist, and leftist forms be prohibited than those which promote traditional western values, institutions, and other right wing concepts. Thus, right wing Fascist regulation of expression is preferable to the regulation of expression that exists in our current climate of State enforced Social Justice.

Moreover, many libertarians often times (and incorrectly) confuse the Nation with the State. The nationalist sentiment of a population does not necessarily translate into a pro State sentiment. In fact, Fascism tends to promote the idea of “family” and “ethnic community” first. This presents a hard limit on the expansion of the State. This is in distinct contrast with other globalist States, such as the US, which contend that all people from any background may fall under the “protections” and “jurisdiction” of a global “humanitarian” democracy. Thus, there is no ideological limit to the size of the current State. This is one of several reasons that nationalism is more conducive than globalism and cosmopolitanism to achieving and sustaining a libertarian social order. For more on this see “Libertarianism Needs Nationalism, (Not Statism)“, “The Benefits of Ethno-nationalism“, “In Defense of Libertarian Nationalism“, and “There is Nothing Unlibertarian About White Nationalism“.

Thus, the promotion of strong nuclear families, ethno-nationalism, and other traditional western values certainly gives Fascism an edge over the current globalist and culturally marxist ridden State. Such values and institutions represent the socio-cultural conditions which enable the establishment and sustenance of a libertarian social order. (For More on this See Hoppe’s: “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right“)

Is Fascism Socialist?

Like all other States, Fascism does entail the presence of socialist, i.e. private property violating, elements. However, we must recognize that a country’s economic system falls on a spectrum between capitalism and socialism. When a country is identified as being “socialist” or “capitalist” it is almost never the case that it is completely absent of any capitalist or socialist elements respectively. This designation is simply short hand for “Country X leans more towards the capitalist end of the economic spectrum than the socialist end” or vice versa. It is my contention that Fascist governments lean more capitalist than socialist (evidence for this position will be provided further on), atleast according to how Hoppe defines capitalism and socialism in the following:

Critics will quickly retort that Hitler, for instance, considered himself a socialist and opponent of capitalism. However, the “capitalism” he opposed was the sort of State managed globalist “capitalism” that is as genuinely capitalist as current day thousand page “Free Trade” agreements are genuinely free trade (that is to say, he wasn’t staunchly opposed to the Hoppean definition of Capitalism provided above). Likewise, Hitler’s affinity for what he termed “socialism” wasn’t an affinity for the Hoppean defined or “Marxian” socialism that comes to mind when contemporary ears hear the term. His appeal to “socialism” was, instead, an appeal to an idiosyncratic version of socialism, or rather a misnomer. In fact, Hitler clarifies his so-called “socialist” position in the following quote, and starkly contrasts it with “Marxian” socialism:

‘Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” ~ Adolf Hitler in the Sunday Express on September 28, 1930 [1]

Mass Privatization Under Fascist Regimes

At this point, one may object that “this narrative you’ve crafted may sound OK in theory, but is this actually how Fascist governments operated in the real word?” The answer is a resounding “YES”. Both Fascist Italy and Germany engaged in unprecedented mass privatizations of formerly State owned industries. It was, in part, through such privatization that Germany was able to so quickly and sustainably pull itself out of economic turmoil. The following is a relevant quote from the “Economics of Fascism” wiki page:

Fascist governments in both Italy and Germany privatized state-owned enterprises at certain times.[33][34][35] These privatizations were carried out in the early stages of both regimes (1922–1925 for Italy and 1934–1937 for Germany) and represented a reversal of the policies of the democratic governments which had preceded them. The democratic governments had brought a number of industries under state ownership and the fascists decided to return them to private ownership.[36] In doing so, they went against the mainstream economic trends of their time, when most Western governments were increasing state ownership.[37][38]

….Significantly, fascist governments were among the first to undertake large-scale privatizations in modern times.[41]

No honest libertarian will disagree that undergoing a similar policy of mass privatization in the current State would be a big step in the right direction.

The Ousting of Debt Based Central Banks

Fascist Germany also followed through with its promise to abolish the Central Bank. The Central Banks have, for many countries, acted as the puppet masters of political figure heads. They create money out of thin air and subsequently loan it to the State! This enables a massive increase in public debt, prolonged war, inflation of the monetary supply, and severe business cycles. As such, the Central Banks were largely responsible for the hyperinflation in 1920’s Germany and the Great Depression. (For a thorough explanation of the pernicious effects of Central Banking see the “Money and Banking” Chapter of A Spontaneous Order.)

Thus, any libertarian worth his salt should also agree that the abolition of the Central Bank, which is among the first orders of business for Fascist States, is perhaps the largest step that can be taken toward a libertarian social order. Red Ice elaborates on Hitler’s activities in this regard:

When Hitler’s period as Chancellor of Germany began, the German people had no work, no money and were starving. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread at the time, and many Germans were living in shacks after countless homes and farms had been seized by Rothschild/Rockefeller-controlled banks.

In his 1967 book The Magic of Money, Hitler’s Reichsbank President, Dr. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, let out the big secret:

“The mark’s dramatic devaluation began soon after the Reichsbank was “privatized,” or delivered to private investors.”

In other words, responsible for the post-war hyperinflation was not the German government, but rather the privately owned central bank in Germany, and its monopoly over the creation of money. Germany’s economy was crashed and devastated by bankers… that is, until Hitler arrived.

After Hitler was elected, refusing to play ball with the Rockefeller-Rothschild rules, one of the first things he did was fix the corrupt, debt-based financial system. By completely thwarting the international banking cartels, the Nazi government issued its own currency known as Reich Marchs, which were debt free and uncontrollable by international financial interests.

…If America nationalized their currency as Hitler did for Germany, they would effectively sever all ties with international bankers, the manipulation of their government and economy would cease, and they would live debt-free. Just as Hitler issued debt-free currency for Germany, Abraham Lincoln setup an interest free banking system in the United States when he was President, and he was murdered for it. Former US president Andrew Jackson issued interest-free currency, and two shots were fired at his head in an assassination attempt, but the shots misfired and he survived. John F. Kennedy issued interest-free currency during his presidency and we all know how he met his untimely demise.

After Germany’s public banking system was installed, world Jewry responded by declaring war on Germany, including a global boycott of German goods. Within two years, the German economy was flourishing with its new-found stable, and inflation-free currency.

As also explained earlier, a debt free currency issued directly by the State is not ideal, but it is far superior to borrowing the money into existence from the Central Bank. Moreover, it is worth noting that the Central Bank in Germany referenced by the author in the above quote was no more private than the Federal Reserve is today. He is understandably confused by this, as the Central Bank is a strange ugly hybrid of State Power and Private Control.

Comparing US and Fascist German Economic Policies

To reinforce the case that a Fascist state would be a step towards a libertarian social order with respect to the current (U.S.) State, it would behoove us to do a more direct comparison of policies enacted by the US and Fascist German governments. The best way of going about this is by comparing each respective government during the same time period. This will minimize any sort of “apples and oranges” comparisons by revealing how each government responds in similar contexts and economic environments. Fortunately, Hoppe has already performed this legwork in his speech entitled “The Economic Doctrine of the Nazis“:

In the United States, the Unemployment rate in 1933 was 24.9%, and in Germany the unemployment rate at that time was 20%…..in both countries it took years to get out of the crisis [economic recession/Great Depression], but interestingly it took much longer in the United States, essentially until the end of WWII, than it did in Germany. Hence, in both countries, obviously, significant errors were made as far as economic policy is concerned, but more mistakes must have actually occurred in the United States than in Germany.

…..From 20% in 1933, unemployment in Germany fell to 12.5% in 1934 to 9.6% in 1935 to 5.7% in 1936 to 2.5% in 1937, and to less than 1% in 1938. By then, obviously, full employment was reached and indeed a shortage of labor emerged, and services became partly compulsory. In contrast, in the United States unemployment fell only slowly from 24.9% in 1933 to 14.3% in 1937, and then actually rose again to 19% in 1938 and still stood at about 15% at the beginning of the war [WWII].

Now what can account for these differences? Both governments continued to inflate (make the same mistake). But as judged by price indicies, atleast Germany did less so than the United States. The consumer price index in Germany, from 1932 to 1938, rose only by 4% and the wholesale price index rose by 12% in the same period. In the United States during the same period, the consumer price index increased by more than 10% and the wholesale price index by more than 20%. So this would indicate that more inflation actually was engendered in the United States than in Germany.

Both governments increased the public debt in order to finance massive public works program, but it appears that more of this debt was financed by genuine savings, rather than artificial fiduciary credit, in Germany than in the United States.

Hoover, and also Roosevelt, hampered the liquidation of malinvestment by strengthening bankruptcy laws. Hitler did no such thing.

Hoover and Roosevelt both increased various taxes and thus stimulated consumption, whereasHitler actually lowered various taxes, namely on automobiles, on property taxes, and on housing construction, so in this way stimulated savings rather than consumption.

Roosevelt significantly strengthened the power of the Unions, thus preventing a fall in wages, and Hitler in contrast broke the power of the Unions, not exactly in the nicest way, but in any case the effect was clearly that a fall in wages was facilitated by his measures.

Roosevelt believed, like a crazy man, that lower prices were actually the cause of the crisis instead of being the consequence or the symptom of the crisis, and in order to keep prices up he took great pains, especially in agriculture, to lower the supply by no less a perverse policy than destroying large quantities of agricultural products. In contrast, Hitler aimed at keeping prices down by increasing the productive output.

The following quote is revealing, ‘although both Roosevelt and Hitler were opponents of the gold standard, Hitler had significantly more enlightened views concerning monetary affairs than his American counterpart.’

Thus Hitler declared, for instance, ‘the value of a currency depends on the volume of production standing behind it. Falling production weakens it, rising production strengthens it. Money is only a matter of paper production, the real task is to increase production to the extent that money is increased.’

….Now, apart from the greater success in the area of unemployment then, Hitler’s economic policies were also more successful in other regards. In the United States, GNP per capita reaches the level of 1929 (before the Great Depression) only again in 1940, and in 1940 statistics are very unreliable already. Personal consumption expenditures in 1940 in the United States were still 8% below the personal consumption figures in 1929. In Germany, on the other hand, from 1933 to 1938 GNP grew by 9.5% per year, industrial output by 17%, and private consumption by 3.6%. From 1932-1938, real wages [in Germany] increased by 21% and per capita income by 40%, and 1928 income levels were reached again already by 1936.

It should be clear from the above, that in practice just as in theory, the Fascists were implementing policies more in line with private property and markets than the American government. Not being on a Central Banking system, Fascist Germany inflated less. Hitler lowered taxes to encourage more production and a natural lowering of prices, whereas Roosevelt increased taxes and artificially kept prices high by destroying agricultural products! Roosevelt strengthened unions via State power, whereas Hitler did not. The comparative results of these contrasting policies, as outlined by Hoppe above, should therefore be unsurprising. Fascism was superior.

“But Fascism Entails a Dictator, and Dictatorships Are the Most Statist!”

This is a superficially plausible statement, yet doesn’t hold true when examined closely. Supposing that Fascist States require a dictator be head of State, this would still be preferable to Democracy. In Democratic States, those in positions of power are only in such positions temporarily. Hence, a political figure is in a position to where he is greatly incentivized to exploit the power and resources at his disposal as much and as quickly as possible for it is a fleeting power. While in office, his incentive is to maintain the admiration he has from the public by robbing from Peter and giving to Paul.

Moreover, since every individual’s vote has equal weight, this coercive redistribution is often done by taking greater amounts of wealth from the smaller amount of upper-middle class productive people and transferring it to the greater number of less productive middle-lower class constituents. Subsidizing the poor and offsetting the costs of their irresponsible behavior onto others only serves to increase their number.

In this environment, parasitism and degeneracy are incentivized while productivity and personal responsibility are punished. In the long run, this destroys a nation and the capital value of its resources. However, democratic leaders are not concerned with the long run because their positions of power are only temporary. The long run is someone else’s problem, and besides, if they don’t exploit their positions of power then someone else will.

In contrast, one who is a dictator and is able to maintain his position of power indefinitely has very different incentives. Because his reign will likely endure for the long run, he has comparatively more incentive to be prudent with the exercise of his power. He is more incentivized to maintain the capital value of the resources under his jurisdiction. Thus, he tends to make policies which are more (though not absolutely) respectful of the institution of private property and free enterprise. He will also tend to have a comparatively lower time preference, as he has more of a sense of ownership for his country, as opposed to only a fleeting sense that he is renting it in the case of democratic leaders. The difference in how owned/private property and rented/common property tend to be treated should be quite illustrative. Admittedly, this is only a cursory comparison between Democracy and Fascism. For a much more thorough critique of Democracy, see Hoppe’s book: Democracy: The God That Failed.

Conclusion

At this point, it should be clear why a move towards Fascism from our current position would be a move towards liberty. Thus, we as libertarians should not be averse to allying with the Alt-Right simply because some of them are Fascist. This is perfectly fine. Fascist governments have a relatively healthy respect for private property and free enterprise. They oppose the Central Bank. They promote traditional western values and institutions. Of course, the most satisfying aspect of Fascism is its ability to mercilessly destroy the Communist threat.

34 thoughts on “Fascism Is A Step Towards Liberty”

Let me respond. I normally like your articles, but this crossed a line.

>As many of you know, the target audience of Radical Capitalist (RadCap) ranges from right leaning libertarians/AnCaps to the Alt-right. RadCap wishes to demonstrate the complementary nature of libertarianism and the Alt-Right, and seeks to forge a union between the two.

>What can be said for certain, however, is that we will not be able to transition from our current State of affairs (pun intended), to a completely AnCap society in a single step. Thus, it behooves us to identify what the intermediate steps and stages may be so as to develop a viable strategy to reaching our libertarian destination.

> require a breach in libertarian principle, an endorsement of aggression, a repudiation of private property, nor an expansion of State power.

Ok seems ok so far.

>Go ahead and start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don’t produce any products or services which damage our nation and our nation’s people… and make sure you treat your workers fair and pay them a living wage. If you don’t follow these rules, we’ll shut you down.”

This is literally minimum wage and labor laws as set by Democracy. You keep using the world “living wage”. You are sounding exactly like the fight for 15 campaign.

>With regard to banking, usury is not allowed under Fascism. The government tightly controls all aspects of monetary policy, including terms of lending. The government issues/prints money and lends it interest free, as needed, to grow the economy and ultimately serve the citizens.

Lets oppose central banks by having the government control the money. This is somehow not centralization.

>There is also a cultural/social aspect to Fascism as well. Under Fascism, government plays a key role in monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music, education, etc in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor, and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts society.

Giving the state the power to regulate speech.

>Also, under Fascism, if a person doesn’t like things, he/she can leave the country. Contrast this with Communism where if you don’t like things, you better keep your mouth shut. And, of course, there is no option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a re-education camp where you’ll be brainwashed to accept the Communist system. And if you still resist, you’ll probably be killed. Again, there is no leaving. Submit or suffer the consequences.

Except the mass killings of dissenters or anyone that is seen as “too ambitious”.

>Continuing this line of thought, under Fascism all people of one’s ethnicity are considered the greater family of that person. Hence, a Fascist nation is thought of as one giant family of several million people. Therefore, just as one mustn’t do anything to hurt their brother or sister in their immediate family, under Fascism one mustn’t do anything which would hurt the nation/group (i.e., the greater family). This is the essence of Fascism – a strong consideration of the group balanced with individualism.

Same nonsense as Communist globalist ideals of one global family. You realize for such a thing to happen, you would be breaking family values.

> I’m not claiming Fascism is perfect.

You’re claiming that Fascism is a step in liberty. It would lead to private property rights violations just as bad or worse than today’s democracies.

>Privitization & protecting family values

You don’t need a dictator to privatize.Real family values by the state claiming to be your family.

>Central Banks

What prevents the state from borrowing from it self? You’re centralizing the currency even more. The issue with central banks is that they are government backed and have power just like central planning. These banks can bail out other banks or is bailed out by the tax payer if it fails.

>Dictatorship

Once you have a dictatorship, the dictator also has an incentive to create a cult of personality. See North Korea and literally any communist nation to see how such societies do not need private property rights to maintain dictatorships and that they will stay in power even if everyone is starving.

Conclusion

To suggest such a government will be dedicated to private property is just as loony as “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Hoppe is a brilliant mind, but he never endorses fascism and crushing the “anti-fascist mob” isn’t an endorsement of fascism.

Here’s Hoppe on dictatorships.

” “proponents of the peaceful-democracy thesis typically support their claim by classifying traditional monarchies and modern dictatorships as autocratic and nondemocratic and contrasting both to what they classify as genuine “democracies.” Yet historically (and if any grouping must be done at all), it is democracy and dictatorship that should be grouped together. Traditional monarchies only resemble dictatorships superficially. Instead, dictatorships are a regular outgrowth of mass democracy. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were distinctly democratic rulers as compared to the former Emperors of Russia, Germany, Austria, and China. Indeed, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao (and almost all of their smaller and lesser known successors) were outspoken in their hatred of everything monarchic and aristocratic. They knew that they owed their rise to democratic mass politics, and they employed democratic politics (elections, referenda, mass rallies, mass media propaganda, etc.) throughout their reign.“”

Here’s the full Mises quote:

“It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.”

I’m going to agree with Mises on this. If opposing dictatorships during times when they are not needed makes this Helicopter Advocates a lolbert, so be it. I’d rather have try another way for liberty than gamble it on the right person^TM to enact ancap.

Most of the issues you took were the very same issues I took with fascism. I admitted these were deviations from libertarianism. I’m not endorsing fascism. I even acknowledged the possibility of not needing to go through fascism to reach libertarianism. The point of the article was simply to make the case that fascism is closer to a libertarian social order than democracy. Also be sure to distinguish between my quotes from others, and my own commentary.

Thank god . I only skimmed your response but I did see the full mises quote . I thought I was the only one who found This article is eye cuttingly sore like . I wanted to repeatedly get hit by a truck over and over again to take the pain away .

But the article isn’t “viewing it as something more” or even endorsing fascism. It’s simply saying its a step closer to liberty with respect to our cirrent position. Hell, the article even acknowledges the possibility that it is a step that may be skipped over.

Even after reading your article, which isnt a bad one, i have a hard time seing how fascism could possibly be a stepping stone in achieving true libertarianism. Fascism in italy had a heavily centralized state, and was corporatist. Meaning both employer and employee in a specific trade had to (not voluntarily) join a syndicate representing their specific interests and was then merged into a specific trade corporation. But the state weighed heavily on both employee and employer in their economic activities, plus production was regulated by the state often, not the corporations themselves. The point was the common good, something that a libertarian society woudlnt entail, because the individual would sacrifice anything for a higher profit. Many libertarians, and you probably dont, call what ought to be called state capitalism “corporatism”, which is false. Mussolini clearly expressed a view that fascism and corporatism was the only way to escape both rootless individualist bourgeois capitalism and international socialism.

Interesting stuff Chase. Thanks for clarifying your position. I will think about this some more, and I will try to make time to watch that 10-part documentary to improve my knowledge of history.

My initial thoughts are that it is odd to compare democracy with fascism, or think of them as being on a spectrum, because they are two different species of things…

– Democracy is a method of selecting state leaders, to be contrasted with monarchy.
– Fascism describes a set of activities that a state engages in, including economic activities (“corporatism”) and social/cultural activities. Current economies are mixed corporatism/socialism and current culture is largely Marxist.

Furthermore, even if the former three are shown to be preferable to the latter three, it is far from clear to me that they are “a step in the right direction”. Going from the latter to the former is hard, and even if we get there, we then face another hard task of moving from the former to a natural order. Is taking these two hard steps easier than going more directly to a natural order, using decentralisation / nullification / secession / agorism?

I wouldn’t say they are anti central banking, they just want another kind of version (which you can make a case is better, I am not sure but I know private money is the best so doesn’t really matter in the great picture). So I would change your words so it is more clear.

I am not so sure fascists are anti imperialists but most altrighters Ino are (who I guess are the ones people call fascist and you want to defend aligning with from a libertarian perspective and they can certainly fit the definition of fascism you have given).

Hitler was anti Slav (and therefor anti white) so I don’t see a great reason to defend him from an altright nor libertarian perspective. Their view on Aryan was that Slavs aren’t Aryan but Japanese are.

Yes i have….in fact I quoted from that very speech in the article. The article wasn’t so much about defending Hitler as it was about making the argument that fascism is a closer step towards freedom from our current position.

Murray (apparently a Scottish moniker given to him by his parents according to Wikipedia) Newton Rothbard would have absoutely, stringently/strictly and steadfastly💯 supported/backed this up or more so would have been 🆒🆗 with the “politically bland/uncorrect” 🆓🆕🈁🆘🆙🚩🔥💥💡➖❌💨🚫 🆚 ➕✅” politically acceptable/ correct” (political/politics in the sense of the total complex of relations between people living in society according to the alternative/secondary/second Merriam Webster definition) because in his book Strictly Confidential:The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard he has/does an exegesis/ a critique/review of Walter Millis (ed.), A World Without War wherein he says and I quote:
He is indeed, unduly pessimistic about the results of his world of guerilla warfare, etc, as he seems to feel that guerilla revolutions in Russia and East Europe would be unfortunate in making conditions less “stable,” etc. Surely, if a people threw off the monstrous tyranny of Communism (and Millis recognizes that his system, for example, would not have enabled Russia to suppress the Hungarian Revolution ), any succeding system would most probably be a gain.

Everything he stated is factual, logical, and coherent. Just because you are impervious to facts and reality does not make the messenger of the information an idiot. Get over your cognitive dissonance you vacuous moron.

Typo alert! I meant to say absolutely not absoutely on my immediate earlier post. Check page 378 of the book to quench your intellectual thirst. It is downloadable for “free” (remember the donors earn a psychic profit for lending it to you at no cost) on pdf format at mises.org. #OpenSource.

Anti-ursury, you’re an absolute brainlet. The fundamentals of hoppean ideology are built on time preference, which also happens to be the fundamental principle behind interest. Just because you hate Jews doesn’t mean they’re doing something wrong.

Hey guys about Murray Newton Rothbard's Rothbard Scottish moniker, I found it on the Man, Economy and Liberty and other Essays about him which are more to do with autobiographies about him and not on Wikipedia as aforementioned by me in the previous comment post like would you imagine how Wikipedia would put across the fact, this fact of Murray's Rothbard Scottish moniker? It would be more like; SELF-HATING JEW WAS NAMED ROTHBARD AS OF A SCOTTISH MONIKER BY HIS WHITE PRIVILEDGED RUSIAN MOTHER and POLISH FATHER.